Appeal No. 2002-2145 Application No. 09/113,808 instance, in developing the here claimed invention. Moreover, this conclusion is supported by the specification disclosure. This is because the first five of the eight specification examples (which form the basis of the here claimed invention) are focused solely on pest kill or mortality. Indeed, the pest mortality tested in examples 1 and 4 did not even involve fruit. Under these circumstances, it is apparent that pest-kill, by itself, constituted a particular problem with which the appellants were involved in developing their claimed invention. For the reasons set forth above and in the answer, we are unconvinced by the appellants’ argument that the Liston reference is from a non-analogous art. We also are unpersuaded by the argument expressed in the brief and in the Staby declaration that an artisan would not have been motivated to combine the applied prior art in such a manner as to result in a method of the type encompassed by appealed claim 1. As explained in the answer, the artisan would have utilized Liston’s method of disinfesting insect pests in food products generally for the purpose of disinfesting pests in citrus fruit specifically in view of the Florida Entomologist 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007